Posted on 08/25/2003 2:05:47 PM PDT by snopercod
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- This year's highly publicized job losses in North Carolina manufacturing, including the Pillowtex bankruptcy, could mean trouble next year for President Bush in a region that was a stronghold in 2000.
Bush won more than 56 percent of the vote in both North Carolina and South Carolina in 2000. But his strong support of free trade has turned some against him in the South, where U.S. trade policies are blamed for the loss of jobs in textiles and other manufacturing sectors.
Andy Warlick, chief executive officer of Parkdale Mills in Gaston County, said he doubts he will repeat his 2000 vote for Bush next year.
"He made a lot of promises and he hasn't delivered on any of them," Warlick said. "I've had some firsthand experience of him sending down trade and commerce officials, but they're just photo ops. It's empty rhetoric."
Fred Reese, the president of Western N.C. Industries, an employers' association, said executives are beginning to raise their voices against Bush and are planning education and voter drives.
"We're seeing a new dynamic where the executives and employees are both beginning to see a real threat to their interests. You're going to see people who traditionally voted Republican switch over," Reese predicted.
The hard feelings were on display days after Pillowtex's July 30 bankruptcy filing, when Republican U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes walked into a Kannapolis auditorium to meet with former workers.
"Thanks for sending the jobs overseas, Robin!" shouted Brenda Miller, a longtime worker at the textile giant's Salisbury plant.
In December 2001 Hayes -- who is an heir to the Cannon family textile fortune -- cast the tie-breaking vote to give Bush the authority to negotiate "fast-track" trade agreements, trade treaties that Congress must vote up or down with no amendments.
At the time, Hayes said he won promises from the Bush administration that it would more strictly enforce existing trade agreements and pressure foreign countries to open their markets to U.S. textiles.
"Are we pleased with the way they responded? Absolutely," Hayes said. "Are we satisfied with where we are? Absolutely not."
Jobs in many industries have fled overseas since 1993, when Congress passed the Clinton-backed North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. About half the textile and apparel jobs that existed in 1994 are gone.
Since Bush took office in January 2001, it is estimated North Carolina and South Carolina have lost more than 180,000 manufacturing jobs.
And even more textile jobs could be out the door once quotas on Chinese imports expire at the end of next year.
Republican U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger voted for NAFTA and fast-track, and has seen his 10th District lose nearly 40,000 jobs, primarily in the textile and furniture industries.
"Certainly, there's a political cost to any controversial vote no matter which side you take," he said. "People are casting stones, but we're trying to pick them up and build something."
Democratic U.S. Sen. John Edwards voted against fast-track in 2002 after voting for an earlier version. In 2000 he voted for permanent normal trade relations with China.
Recently, though, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards has attacked Bush's trade policies and called for fairer trade measures.
Robert Neal, vice president of the local chapter of the Pillowtex workers' union, said Hayes has worked to try to ease the impact of job losses in his district.
"Though he (Hayes) voted for fast-track, he is really concerned about the workers and their conditions in the state of North Carolina," Neal said.
Not everyone feels that way.
Reese is organizing 1,500 manufacturing companies across North Carolina in an effort to leverage what he calls a new voting bloc.
In South Carolina, voter drives are planned for the first time at Milliken & Co., which has about 30 plants in the state. Mount Vernon Mills of Greenville, S.C., is forming a political action committee.
The company's president Roger Chastain, a one-time Bush voter, doesn't expect to support the president or Jim DeMint, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Ernest Hollings.
"We're basically liquidating our whole middle class, polarizing people on the two extremes, have and have-nots," Chastain said of the manufacturing job losses. "We'll be a Third World country."
What I see in our future:
The class structure we have won't change much, just redistribute. America will become structured more like Mexico. A small elite that owns and runs the country, A small and well to do middle class of professionals and highly skilled specialized workers and artisans that service and support the lifestyle of the Elite. and the lower class of peasants, which will be everyone else. The chance for upward mobility will be almost non-existant for the vast majority of people. We'll all have the same rights we have now, on paper at least, but only the upper two classes will be able to exercize them with any degree of meaningfulness.
I believe this is at least 10 years away. I may be wrong.
That's funny because I don't like him pandering to people like you. I'm still going to vote for him though because unlike you, I hate true socialists even more.
Yep. I've said it a million times and I stick to it... Bush will win fairly easily in 2004. Haven't seen anything to make me change my mind on this. Paleos mad at him still? Good, he's doing something right.
So what's wrong with that?
Every planet that the Enterprise visits has only one world government. And if Star Trek tells me so...then it must be a good thing.
</dripping sarcasm>
And 15 years ago, the all knowing press was saying that the Japanese would be owning everything.
The current tariff structure is in accord with the Uraguay round tariff structures. The purpose of teh Uraguay Round agreement on tariffs which was later put through by the WTO is specifically transfer wealth and industry from Rich nations to poor nations. yes I can provide a link to this if needed.
Just some facts to try to illuminate the discussions.
No.
It's not even a subtle charade. These people are incapable of anything elegant or clever.
However, something is going to come to pass very soon in this department. Be it good or bad, I am just hearing too much about unemployed Americans and jobs going overseas.
You know, Iraq is great... I am 100% in agreement with our mission there. Osama & the tallybastards too, they got what they deserved.. That's all fine and good.
But people can't eat that, or spend it and I think the next election will turn on kitchen table issues like jobs, the economy and other domestic concerns.
I believe the general consensus will be: "Yes, Saddam was a bad guy.. But that was yesterday. Today, the mortgage is due and little billy needs braces. George Bush doesn't care if my job went to China or India, and I want change.."
All the spin, all the hype, all the media coverage in the world will not pay the rent or send a kid to college. Americans need jobs and financial security every bit as much as much as they need homeland security and protection from despots like Saddam and his fruitcake pals.
And this makes Congress imposing more taxation on US corporations' overseas revenue (the idea I was responding to in Post #123) a good idea because...?
(Cue "Final Jeopardy" theme)
And then it was the Mexicans, and now Indians and Chinese, and on and on...
Never underestimate the ability of cyclical economic downtunrns to lead paleos to conclude that we are all doomed (and it's them damn imgrants! fault).
ABB. (Anyone but Bush) I was fooled once, not again. I don't like his policies on many levels. He has turned his back on America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.